US Army Suppressing Soldier's 2nd Amendment Rights, OFF Base (Merged)

This is a discussion on US Army Suppressing Soldier's 2nd Amendment Rights, OFF Base (Merged) within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Military members cannot strike...protest...can't even go on record speaking ill about the President...without risking judicial action...
This is only partly true. Enlisted members can do ...

Military members cannot strike...protest...can't even go on record speaking ill about the President...without risking judicial action...

This is only partly true. Enlisted members can do all of things (with exceptions - they can't strike, for instance, but they can speak publically and espouse political opinions in public), as long as they are not doing so as representatives of the military - i.e. they can't be in uniform, they can't say "the military things," or "my unit thinks..."

Officers are held to another standard, under Article 88 iof the UCMJ, the "Contempt" clause(s). They state:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

That said, I agree for the most part that commanders must maintain broad and far reaching authority over their subordinates. I also believe that they must make decisions such as barring off-duty/off-base carry with the most careful scrutiny, and must be able to articulate good and sufficient reason supported by facts (not just "I think it's dangerous") before making any such decision.

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

This is only partly true. Enlisted members can do all of things (with exceptions - they can't strike, for instance, but they can speak publically and espouse political opinions in public), as long as they are not doing so as representatives of the military - i.e. they can't be in uniform, they can't say "the military things," or "my unit thinks..."

Officers are held to another standard, under Article 88 iof the UCMJ, the "Contempt" clause(s). They state:

That said, I agree for the most part that commanders must maintain broad and far reaching authority over their subordinates. I also believe that they must make decisions such as barring off-duty/off-base carry with the most careful scrutiny, and must be able to articulate good and sufficient reason supported by facts (not just "I think it's dangerous") before making any such decision.

I over-simplified on the "speaking out" portion...you are 100% correct...

I know I'll never be in a position to make command decisions like this - I tried to stay a 1LT for my entire commissioned career! - but I would never do so either. There is no doubt in my military mind that this was an emotional/political decision not based in actual fact or concern for troop welfare. In other words, it's BS. :)

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Lol Dave... I was old (relatively) when I was commissioned, after 8 years enlisted, so I knew I was way behind the power curve for any senior rank anyway. Plus, IMO, there aren't any good jobs after Company Command, and really that is a distant second to being a platoon leader. I led two rifle platoons, a scout platoon, and then a recon/sniper platoon (during that last one we were under stop-move orders, so I went ahead and let them promote me since I knew I'd stay in my PL slot).

You can believe that when we were in theater, I bent the "carry condition" rules for my guys to the absolute limit, as well as scrounging side arms, M14s, COTS optics, and everything else I could get my hands on to help their survivability. I also trained hard - often outside of the "official" training programs - to make sure my guys were safe and efficient with everything they had. This, IMO, is the key - definitely not some blanket order prohibiting warriors from acting like (and being equipped as) warriors...

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

This is only partly true. Enlisted members can do all of things (with exceptions - they can't strike, for instance, but they can speak publically and espouse political opinions in public), as long as they are not doing so as representatives of the military - i.e. they can't be in uniform, they can't say "the military things," or "my unit thinks..."

Officers are held to another standard, under Article 88 iof the UCMJ, the "Contempt" clause(s). They state:

That said, I agree for the most part that commanders must maintain broad and far reaching authority over their subordinates. I also believe that they must make decisions such as barring off-duty/off-base carry with the most careful scrutiny, and must be able to articulate good and sufficient reason supported by facts (not just "I think it's dangerous") before making any such decision.

I recommend reading up on the Hatch Act...which applies to ALL Federal employees...

Further Restricted Employees
Further Restricted Employees – Political Restrictions

Further Restricted federal employees may not –

* use official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

* knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contri¬bution from any person (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations);

* be a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office;

* knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of anyone who has business pending before their employing agency; or

* engage in political activity, while

* on duty;

* in a government office;

* wearing an official uniform; or

* using a government vehicle.

These employees are also prohibited from engaging in partisan political management or partisan political campaigns. Specifically, they may not engage in political activity in concert with a candidate for partisan political office, a political party or a partisan political group.

Further Restricted Employees – Examples of Prohibited Activities

Further Restricted federal employees may not, for example:

* campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections

* accept or receive a donation or contribution for a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group

* use an official title or position while engaged in political activity

* supervisory employees may not invite subordinate employees to political events or otherwise suggest to the subordinate that he or she attend the political event or undertake any partisan political activity

Additionally, while on duty and/or in any federal room or building, Further Restricted federal employees may not, for example:

* wear partisan political buttons, t-shirts or other items

* make political contributions to a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group

* post a comment to a blog that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group

* use any e-mail account to distribute, send or forward content that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group

For clarification:
1. Did this USARAK ban carrying of weapons period or CC only? The simply route, if CC only, is OC, which is common in AK.
2. Is this order still in effect?
3. Has anyone addressed it through the Inspector General's office or Congressional representative?

Noted, Combat Advisor, but I didn't say that they could make campaign speeches. I said they could "speak publically and espouse political opinions in public." A servicemember could, for instance, answer a reporter's question regarding a political topic with his/her own political views, as long as they were not "on the clock" or in uniform, or attempted to convey their views as being those of anyone else or any other group.

Almost all the examples you posted apply only when "on duty and/or in any federal room or building;" said activities are therefore allowed when NOT on duty or in any federal room or building.

We aren't really as repressed, in our own time and in our own opinions, as you might believe.

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

For clarification:
1. Did this USARAK ban carrying of weapons period or CC only? The simply route, if CC only, is OC, which is common in AK.
2. Is this order still in effect?
3. Has anyone addressed it through the Inspector General's office or Congressional representative?

1. From reading the policy...it was carrying of concealedfirearms off-post.

2. & 3. Why do you think members of Congress are proposing this legislation??

So if a GI wants to hunting, he gets arrested by the MPs? I don't think this needs an act of Congress to correct. I think a complaint to the IG or a Congressman would take care of it.

Army, what can you say? I carried my Blackhawk anytime I went out in the bush while I was in AK. Our CO could care less.

I corrected my earlier post....the policy was against carrying concealed off post....the policy does not address hunting. This was directed specifically against gun owners who carry for protection of themselves and family members.

"Thinking" "someone" said something is what perpetuates myths and legends.

Either he did (I doubt it) or he didn't, but the facts would be nice. I can't see the USARAK (US Army Res-Alaska?) doing that, when it's permitted by the state and fed gov't.

Sorry, I have discussed this before, so I didn't think I needed to rehash it that much. General Order 0-20 was issued at least as far back as '05-or '06 under MG Jacoby. I was there (not under USARAK) at the time. I don't remember it being limited to CC, but that could be a faulty memory. Here is a link to the policy under MG Layfield. (See page I-6). http://www.usarak.army.mil/ncoa/ncot...lue%20Book.pdf

As far as AK Senators, good luck. Mark Begich was quite anti-gun as the Los Anchorage mayor, and Lisa "Daddy's little princess" Murkowski is only "okay" on guns.

ETA: Found another little tidbit (same link) on page E-3.

h. No firearms maintained in the household of a military member will be stored in a
loaded condition. Ammunition will always be stored in a locked container.

The only case I've heard of personally was in Alaska, where one army command which at least used to ban open carry by soldiers off post.

Please, if anyone has other examples of off base restrictions or registration, post details here.

There must have been something in the water then because I remember being forced to register all of my personal firearms in June or July of 2005. This occurred at Luke AFB, AZ. They also asked about our training and whether we carried or not.

At every AF base I was ever stationed, any firearms stored "on base or in off-base military housing" had to be registered with the Security Police. I had no objection to that--their house, their rules. It also gave me a handy list of models, makes, and ser. #s. Whether that policy still exists, I can't say. I retired in '91.

At no time was there ever any restrictions on off-base, off-duty carrying or use. Any violation of state or Federal firearm law, however, could have resulted in military disciplinary action.

Any "civilized" society has rules and guidelines to follow. Anyone who feels there should be no controls on firearms should spend a few years where all firearms are prohibited, or somewhere that there is no firearm control.